What words mean in the science of climate change, global warming........

Some of these terms cross into other areas of science.

Global warming - the current warming trend
Climate change - any period in which the climate changed

The above 2 are not the same thing. They were not thought up to confuse people. Global warming is climate change but not all climate change is global warming.


Trick - a method of presenting data in science

Fact - a verified observation

Hypothesis - an attempted explanation of the facts

Theory - a well established hypothesis

I'll add more as I see people confusing more terms.

 

Nobody disagrees on what poverty is, which is the outcome of governments rationing energy.

 

I like your definition of trick. Is simply truncating results that don’t agree with your hypothesis that trees can be used a temperature proxies ethical science? Once again your side defends unethical science for the greater good. You are zealots.

As to the nature of this thread, I reject your premise. You don’t get to define (*)(*)(*)(*) and short of stroking your own pole I see no reason for this thread.

 

Nothing I stated is false.

 

Truncating your results to hide a divergence that discredits your hypothesis isn't very scientific. It sounds more like a trick as defined by.

Trick - a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud ~ Merriam -Webster Dictionary

I'm sorry it seams that the traditional Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of trick far better suit for what Dr. Mann did than your new speak definition.

 

Global = the entire planet - not just that bit you can see out of your computer room window

Average = adding all the numbers up and dividing by the total number within the data set - i.e. is not that bit you can see out of your computer room window

 

And has Mann's result been replicated?

 

15 Useful MS Word Tricks you Probably Didn’t Know

windows 7 tricks: 20 top tips and tweaks

http://calculustricks.com/

You, also, do not get to define the definition of "trick" to meet your agenda, nor can you get to tell Dr. Mann what he meant by "trick". How can Dr. Mann's use of the word "trick" be deceptive when he wrote a peer-reviewed article about the problem?

Sort of hard to "hide the decline" when he has a peer-reviewed article discussing it.

 

Because one is inside baseball another is a summery for policy makers. Just because the divergence problem is known doesn't mean it is resolved. You cannot claim that your reconstruction is accurate when you cannot resolve the divergence problem.

The trick that paleoclimatologists have come up with is simply to ignore the divergence problem all together when presenting their reconstructions. This is deceitful. This is not ethical science. If the reconstruction as diverged for the last 50 years there is no way you can be certain that it hasn’t done the same during the rest of the reconstruction. I’m sorry that you cannot grasp this concept as it is so simple. Perhaps you should quit trying to argue scientific issues.

Let’s just ask Dr. Mann how ethical grafting temperature data onto the end of a reconstruction to replace a divergence i.e. the trick is.

“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.” ~ Dr. Mann @ realclimate.org 2004

Realclimate has since taken down the incriminating statement. What else would you expect from a Soros project?

 

So you have no proof that Dr. Mann actually made that statement?

 

So despite it being quoted and chaced all over the internet you are denying that he said it.

Here it is quoted in the NYT

I win you loose. You cant hang with me on the subject of science MannieD.

 

Not quite mate yet, Windy.
Except it was never taken off the RC site.

And now for the rest of the quote

You are welcome. And BTW, you can now apologize for your smear of RC and Soros.

 

The link I clicked was dead. Maybe RC moved it so that everyone who had linked to it no longer had a valid link.

That would be a valid point if Mann had done so and simply appended the temperature record after the reconstruction but he did not. He did exactly what he is denying. There is at least a good 30 of Mann's reconstruction where he uses temperature data to pad his proxy data to overcome the divergence problem. This is not a solution at all. Its simply a trick as defined by Merriam-Webster to defraud the public that his reconstruction is more accurate than it is.

McIntyre had a great thread on it way back in 2007 before anyone had ever heard of climategate. So even back then we knew how Mann had solved the divergence problem, he cheated.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/#comment-340175

And as you will notice McIntyre got his best results grafting the whole 20th century onto the reconstruction so Mann probably used a lot more than just 30 years.

 

This is fun...let me help.

Global Warming=First Hoax
Climate Change=adjusted Hoax
Agenda Driven=First and adjusted hoax

 

Nice spin but global warming = climate change.

They are now saying that global warming leads to colder winters.

So if its hot, its due to global warming and if its cold its due to global warming or climate change. They got all bases covered now. The 2 words are interchangable.

They are trying to change it to climate change, b/c they figured out over time, that covering either end of the spectrum, hot or cold, was more palatable to their cause.

 

Global warming is climate change but not all climate change is global warming.

All sedans are cars but not all cars are sedans.

 

Have you even got your ducks in a row on how global warming is causing all this snow? So far I have read two competing explinations. I suggest that you all get goose stepping in the same direction.

 

Go back to the post on average and computer room window.

 

So in other words, no apology, only excuses. I hadn't expected anything different.

Dr. Mann has addressed the proxy/instrumental records issue in his papers.

 

No that doesn't account for Mann's grafting of the temperature record onto his reconstruction. I don’t think you understand what you are reading.

 

I think we should also define for the scientifically illiterate

1. Research paper
2. Scientific journal
3. Science report
4. Editorial
5 opinion piece
6. blog
7. Anonymous website
8. astroturf
9. conspiracy website
10. and my favourite - the role and function of academic referencing (or indeed ANY referencing) in validation of data and or discussion points

 

Yeah, but then they'd just claim that science is a good ol' boys club that doesn't let anyone play. Just look at their heroes like Ben Stein who claims that not allowing anyone to publish in science without criticism is anti freedom of speech and antiAmerican.

 

We all know that - no need of your reminder from the ministry of truth: "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength."

 

Climate and Weather

Many supporters of the AGW theory seem to think these two words mean the same thing. They don't people, and that's half the reason you are so confused.

 

It's those opposed to global warming that confuse them. They think that because it's raining where they live today (a weather event) that the world can't be warming (a climate trend).